Content
75%Weight 40%Scale 1-5Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is concise, actionable, and well-structured with concrete command and template examples and a clear define-implement-evaluate-report workflow. The main gap is the absence of explicit validation/feedback-loop gates in the workflow, which keeps it just short of top marks.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is largely efficient — short labeled sections, tight code blocks, and minimal preamble; it does not lecture on what evals are, though a few templated markdown blocks (eval/report skeletons) are somewhat padded. Sits above the score-3 'mostly efficient' anchor but short of the fully lean score-5. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete, runnable shell snippets (grep/npm test/npm run build) and ready-to-use markdown templates for eval definitions and reports; a few template placeholders are non-executable, leaving minor gaps consistent with score-4 'mostly executable, minor gaps'. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear four-stage sequence (define → implement → evaluate → report) is laid out with explicit command invocations at each stage; however validation/feedback checkpoints (run eval, fail → fix → re-run) are implied rather than made into explicit validate-then-proceed gates, capping it just below 5. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Content is well-organized into clearly labeled sections with a navigable structure and no nested references; there are no bundle files, but the body is appropriately self-contained and sectioned, so it lands at score-4 'good structure, minor organization gaps' rather than the fully split score-5. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |